|
Post by billt on Jan 11, 2007 16:38:56 GMT -5
matt and lee define victory as having a stable middle east.....since the FACT is the people in the middle east have been fighting with each others for centuries, there has NEVER been stability in the area...how exactl do we "win this victory". it is obvious if we leave there will be civil war among the groups there...so we send our troops over there FOREVER to act as targets for the warring factions? do we take a side and kill all the others? we join the sunnis and kill all the shiites or vice versa? ? by what authority do we the USA tell anyone in the middle east what type government they may have, what type weapons they may have? ? you do understand by the way that much of the killing over the last few decades has been done with weapons WE sold them? ?? the USA has stepped into a family argument and the ONLY real victory that brings lasting peace is to kill ALL muslims. i dont see where we have that authority. i suggest we bring our troops home, SECURE our borders, and trade relations with other nations but NO entangling alliances.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 17:42:34 GMT -5
Maybe they mean stable as in it being as stable as it was prior to the Iraq war. The difference being that there would a government in power closer to a democratic form than the previous one, a "base" to build on. If it occurs, I see no reason why the Iraq infrastructure coudn't be moved up to the 20th century level, if not 21st century since the country's resources won't be used mainly to build palaces, etc. for a dictator and his cronies.
We are still in Korea, Japan, Cuba, Bosnia, not to mention a dozen other places from the past.
We kill those that are comitting the acts of military level violence, whether they be shia or sunni.
They formed the type of government they now have.
We attempt to keep guns out of the hands of felons in the United States, ie. there are certain people that you don't want for them to obtain the means to kill others in a large scale. We all start off equal when we are born, just like a nation, but that doesn't mean we are all equal in the end.
Gun manufactures sell to people all the time, that doesn't mean they are accomplices to crimes.
Killing all muslims isn't an option for consideration and we don't have that authority.
Your suggestion is valid but only for short term gain, in the long term, I think, it just delays a problem that will only get larger. Then in the future we will be dealing with a war or wars that will take 4,000 American soldier's lives in one hour versus the same total amount in years.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 11, 2007 18:03:24 GMT -5
Actually there has been from time to time relative stability in the ME. Even Saddam's Iraq was once recognized as a stabilizing influence over the more radical Iran. More recently, Iraqis continue to voluteer for service in the security forces. It is possible to exhaust the will of jihadist. I would think most ordinary Iraqis are already very ready for fighting to end.
I do fear that the current troop surge is a mistake. If we do it for the Iraqis then they may again become overly reliant upon our soldiers. Also more troops does as you suggest mean more opertunities for jihadist to target them.
Yes, we take sides. A democratically elected goverment of Iraq does already exist. It is their side we are on, not any ethnic death squad. I refuse to call them militia since milita sets guard and prevents murders in the night rather than themselves dreaming of reprisals during their slumber.
The right of self preservation as it extends to those who we are allied with is what gives us the right to act against any belligerant state.
Yes, we sold weapons. As I stated, at one point in time Saddam did limit the radicalization of the region coming from Iran.
What peace has ever been lasting? When was the last time genocide was necessary to subdue a population? And that is assuming that most Iraqis need to be subdued, when in fact many Iraqis do support their own democractically elected gvmt. As ugly the war does seem now, it would be far worse if we were actually at war with the entire country.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 11, 2007 18:17:45 GMT -5
the elected leader of iraw is very closely allied with the leader of iran.
our ultimate success depends on the YOUTHS of the middle east, they need to reject theocracy, or nothing will ever change.
the leaders of the region are involved in centuries old disputes.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 18:21:08 GMT -5
"I refuse to call them militia since milita sets guard and prevents murders in the night rather than themselves dreaming of reprisals during their slumber."
"The right of self preservation as it extends to those who we are allied with is what gives us the right to act against any belligerant state." Those are some very thought out comments.
I hope this comes off correctly....why would we think that adding 18k troops to the already 150k there, result in more opportunities for jihadists? They have 150k to "shoot" at now and they are only able to get, what 1 to 5 a day with some spurts into double digits. So, to me, this talk of more American soldiers deaths by the hands of the Jihadists doesn't make any logical sense.
That's like saying you have a 6 shooter and kill 6 deer each reload and by adding more deer to the field you will kill more.
edit. deaths not dealths
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 18:26:38 GMT -5
the elected leader of iraw is very closely allied with the leader of iran. our ultimate success depends on the YOUTHS of the middle east, they need to reject theocracy, or nothing will ever change. the leaders of the region are involved in centuries old disputes. I can agree that the youth are the key to any lasting change. I woudn't go so far as to say they have to reject Theocracy though...just the part that they use to justify the murder of other people.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 11, 2007 18:59:51 GMT -5
18k/150k was your (phinehas)best criticsm of the concept of the surge resulting in higher US casualties.
Nevertheless, most casualties currently result from the jihadists cowardly placement of road side bombs. More troops is likely to mean more travel. Of course, of that 18k are probably more than a handfull of folks that would know how to recognise and possibly dissarm said bombs. Also, if the surge is sucessful in engaging the enemy then the jihadists would have less time to set traps.
So, I am nearly convinced on the important part of your (phinehas) post but your (phinehas)last metaphor is not persuasive. More deer on the field would mean more deer shot, but then deer do not shoot back. I suppose I may have been thinking more of playing 30 on 30 on a 1/2 acre paintball field.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 19:23:04 GMT -5
"So, I am nearly convinced on the important part of your (phinehas) post but your (phinehas)last metaphor is not persuasive." It's a start in the right direction. Let me say it another way, which may be too similar to the first way but will see. The only way the Jihadists will kill more American soldiers is if they have purposely been holding back, either in the number of attacks or in the severity of the explosions. If they have not been holding back, which I don't think they are, then the opportunities they have to kill our soldiers are limited. They are trying as hard as they can. Having more soldiers drive down a road won't cause them to automatically produce more IEDs waiting for them. If they had the ability to place and set off more IEDs, they would do it. The other scenario is how big of a bang they have set for IEDs. That would occur if the American military decided to put more military people in each specific vehicle...but they are probably full as it is and once one IED goes off, it kills/maims the numbers in that specific area. So, I think my metaphor is right in that the hunter ONLY has 6 shots and therefore only has the opportunity to kill a maximum of 6 deer in the field any given day...whether there are 50 dear or 1,000 dear in the field, it doesn't matter, he can only kill a maximum of 6 deer due to the amount of time he has after he shoots and the fact that he only has 6 bullets.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 11, 2007 19:23:49 GMT -5
the elected leader of iraw is very closely allied with the leader of iran. our ultimate success depends on the YOUTHS of the middle east, they need to reject theocracy, or nothing will ever change. the leaders of the region are involved in centuries old disputes. True ultimate sucess will be the full rejection of theocracy, which incidently means apostacy for muslims. That does not disprove the small sucesses that have occured in Iraq. Unfortunately, even after we leave a relatively stable democratic Iraq, we must continue a battle of ideas to prevent the radicalization that comes directly from the koran. Islam must die.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 11, 2007 19:34:05 GMT -5
to phinehas: All good points. My initial reasoning for thinking that the surge will result in higher casualties was wrong, the target enrichment theory is debunked.
A fear that casualties will be escalated still persist because of the implication that the buildup is in anticipation of some fighting. But such is war, I will not call it a mistake.
For more fun with metapors How is this proverbial gun limited? Are we prepared to enter Iran where the shells are kept? How robust is the construction of this gun? Could it be used as a club?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 19:42:07 GMT -5
to phinehas: All good points. My initial reasoning for thinking that the surge will result in higher casualties was wrong, the target enrichment theory is debunked. A fear that casualties will be escalated still persist because of the implication that the buildup is in anticipation of some fighting. But such is war, I will not call it a mistake. For more fun with metapors How is this proverbial gun limited? Are we prepared to enter Iran where the shells are kept? How robust is the construction of this gun? Could it be used as a club? LOL. Well, it's nice to think I could have debunked anything. The anticipation of some fighting is a valid concern for an increase in inital troop casualties, I agree. But when we fight them toe to toe, they lose big time...so there might be an intial increase that would level off and I think would result in a lower number of troop casualties, due to less Jihadists available to plant IEDs, over the same period of time, if we didn't bring in more troops to kick arse. as far as the gun metaphor, yes it is simplistic but I still think that the Jihadists were doing as much as they could and can with the people and resources they have. If things occur which increase the number of Jihadists available and resources for them to do damage, then my scenario could fade away. Edit: To play devils advocate.... There could also be the theory that the Jihadists are only doing just enough to accomplish what they want, which could be true. They could be fooling a lot of people and there is only one way to find out for sure.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 11, 2007 19:56:33 GMT -5
the above scenarios could be correct, but confounders exist....the jihadists have also been killing each other so MOST of the killing ability has been directed in a different direction from our troops.....the POINT of the surge would be to engage and kill the enemy and that alone would increase casualties. by the way everybody agrees the problem is the muslin jihadists but why doesnt anyone address that the madrasses are in and the MONEY comes from saudi arabia? ? the ROOTS of the radicals are THERE and most of the 9/11 perps came from there saudi arabia. i agree by the way fighting one on one we kill 50 to 1 better than them at least.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 12, 2007 10:51:53 GMT -5
the above scenarios could be correct, but confounders exist....the jihadists have also been killing each other so MOST of the killing ability has been directed in a different direction from our troops.....the POINT of the surge would be to engage and kill the enemy and that alone would increase casualties. by the way everybody agrees the problem is the muslin jihadists but why doesnt anyone address that the madrasses are in and the MONEY comes from saudi arabia? ? the ROOTS of the radicals are THERE and most of the 9/11 perps came from there saudi arabia. i agree by the way fighting one on one we kill 50 to 1 better than them at least. Your right about the direction but that can be explained by the fact that the Jihadists were not very effective with causing havok in the country UNTIL they started blowing up civilians. When they took that direction, it started to fullfil their goals. They want the world to think that it would go away as long as the Americans left. It's just a tactic to allow them to survive, nothing more. That being said, the type of attacks they do on the civilians would not be effective against our military unless our military, for some reason, started to gather together publically in large numbers at weddings, mosques, funerals, etc. Your right that their are Jihadists in Saudia Arabia funding other Jihadists....I don't know enough about the finanical end of the equation to have an opinion on it.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Jan 12, 2007 22:14:18 GMT -5
the above scenarios could be correct, but confounders exist....the jihadists have also been killing each other so MOST of the killing ability has been directed in a different direction from our troops.....the POINT of the surge would be to engage and kill the enemy and that alone would increase casualties. by the way everybody agrees the problem is the muslin jihadists but why doesnt anyone address that the madrasses are in and the MONEY comes from saudi arabia? ? the ROOTS of the radicals are THERE and most of the 9/11 perps came from there saudi arabia. i agree by the way fighting one on one we kill 50 to 1 better than them at least. Not only are there radicalizing madrasses in Saudi Arabia, but also UK, France, Sweden, and the US. Did you know that a local member of BIS raised funds for a Hamas front? The "ROOTS" of the radicals is in the koran. Most of the perps were SA some were not, all were muslim.
|
|